In a consulting company, the needs for any particular engagement will vary. For example, one situation may require more development skills, another may require more skills related to business solution exploration and analysis, and yet another may require more testing related skills.
What this generally means is that consultants are hired out more like a collection of individuals than as a stable team. This creates problems since people are constantly re-forming teams. By the time you get comfortable with each other and start performing, it resets and starts all over again. Rotation and common approaches helps mitigate this phenomenon but it still isn't ideal.
To address the problem, we could adopt a model where teams were hired rather than individuals but this might be seen as a rather drastic change, especially by customers.
Instead of a stable team, why not have a stable study group? The study group would consist of people across multiple disciplines that meet regularly to cross-train and share experiences. If not entirely compensating for the overhead of repeated team formation, it should at least ensure exposure to cross-functional perspectives.
Now replace "consulting company" with "typical medium to large enterprise". Introducing stable teams into medium to large functionally-oriented enterprises is a non-trivial exercise. Would study groups be a useful transitionary alternative instead?
Love it. I've been doing roundtables for years - did one the other night at my dining room table. I now do them for my clients with their stakeholders or customers in the room, i.e., client and customers in the room together having a dialogue. It strikes me that they are a form of study group.
ReplyDeleteYour stable study group idea makes huge sense.